Driftwork

Some asked: Would you please elaborate on what you mean by saying “I am against private property"?

My second attempt to answer this is below:

These seem fair enough examples… and I’ll try and remain within the framework. What you touch on below with the examples and especially the use of the term ‘recycled’ is I think central to one of the key issues in what we need to think of as a “lifecycle of property". I’m unsure how to clarify this thought so forgive any inability on my part to get this thought right.

The problem which with the concept of ‘private property’ is that no single ownership can ever exist throughout the lifecycle of the object, one of the central problems with mass consumption whether it is at the level of plastic packaging, tooth brushes or even housing and land is that the lifecycle of the object is never taken into account. So that I purchase a toothbrush for my personal use. From constructed from petro-chemicals, owned by manufacturer, distributer, supermarket, then by me, discraded into the now privatised company that runs the local waste disposal for my Local council/state waste under the rules imposed on the local state by the European rules and laws (EC). Eventually the toohbrush ends up in a landfill or perhaps incinerated and reduced to carbon emissions into the atmosphere. So my toothbrush as a simple 7 or 8 step continuum of ownership, all of whom are collectivle responsible for the toothbrush throughout its lifecycle. The plastic bag it came in is in the meantime floating out into the Atlantic… Logically then in an objects lifecycle there is no singular point of ownership and responsibility. A person/user uses the object for a given period of time and then does not.

In a mass-consumptive society all objects should be considered against their lifecycles, one of ownership and one of the object itself. Within such a framework the idea of ‘private property’ and ownership becomes increasingly problematic and exceedingly difficult to deal with, as the concept of private property seemingly obstructs our ability to consider the object virtually and actually. (difficult this) I own a car, however we humans and non-humans are collectively responsible for the damage and pleasure that this car-object will bring, we are all collectively responsible. So that if I dispose of the car irresponsibly. others will be forced to dispose of the car responsibly. >From a toothbrush, car to nuclear power station it’s a question of re-constructing the relations around the object within this collective imperative ( bit to Kantian but still)

I am not saying that private property is necessarily evil, just that the concept itself doesn’t help us understand what the object and our relationship with the object is, whether at the level of a tootbrush, a sports utility vehicle or a nuclear power plant. All objects are ultimately collective rather than private because during the objects lifecycle they are our collective responsibility.

Finally then the lamy pen in front of me, which I have had for ten years or even longer, is of course my ‘property’ and will remain so until it no longer is… which is fine - however my neighbours sports utility vehicle will be removed from her ownership and destroyed long before its natural lifecycle is over, because collectively it is simply unacceptable that she uses it….

I think you’ll have to hit me around the head about this, please break the thought, as I’d like to see if this can fit the post-commodification line of thought…

(At one time I would have described this in socialist/communist critiques of private-property but it’s not been theoretically sufficient for some time.)